Tensions fizz as New York court hears challenge to sugary drink law

Date: January 26 2013

Michael Grynbaum

NEW YORK: The fight over New York mayor Michael Bloomberg's restrictions on sugary drink sizes made its way to a New York City court this week and the proceedings quickly came to resemble a whimsical episode of TV show The Good Wife.

In one corner was the American beverage industry, arguing that the city's new rule, which is scheduled to take effect in March and would prohibit the sale of sweet drinks in containers larger than 16 ounces (473 millilitres), restricts consumer freedom in a way that would be ''grotesquely unfair'' to small businesses.

Not so, replied the city's lawyers, who called the rule a pragmatic way to address rampant obesity in a city where more than half the adults are overweight.

The hearing, held in the state Supreme Court in Manhattan, ended with no immediate ruling. Justice Milton Tingling jnr, who presided, adjourned the case without comment.

The beverage industry, which filed the lawsuit in October, said it was requesting a stay of Mr Bloomberg's soda restrictions until the case could be resolved.

The rules would affect a range of sugary drinks at locations including restaurants, movie theatres, ballparks and food carts. Some stores, such as 7-Eleven and CVS drug stores, would be exempt because of a quirk of state regulatory law.

Sal, an imaginary pizza man, was invoked by the lead lawyer for the beverage industry, James Brandt of the corporate firm Latham & Watkins.

He argued that ''Sal'' - and the owners of Sabrett hot-dog kiosks - would be at a competitive disadvantage if the new rules were enacted, since customers seeking larger beverages could bypass their shops for a nearby 7-Eleven.

Mr Brandt at one point suggested the soda rules would lead to a slippery slope of Orwellian government micro-management.

''What comes next?'' Mr Brandt asked. ''Red meat twice a week, but no more? You can buy your bacon and cheese in the morning, but no eggs on it? No jaywalking, because you might get hurt if you jaywalk?''

At this, Justice Tingling, who rarely spoke during the proceedings and betrayed few signs of his thinking on the case, chose to weigh in.